The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal preferred by the State against bail granted by a special court to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Rajya Sabha member and the party’s organising secretary R.S. Bharathi in a case booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that there was no necessity for interfering with the bail granted by the special court for SC/ST cases on June 1 since the prosecution had not cited any compelling reasons. He agreed with senior counsel R. Shunmugasundaram, representing the MP, that bail could not be cancelled merely at the “whims of the State.”
Though the State had contended that the bail ought not to have been granted in a case booked under a stringent legislation such as SC/ST Act, the judge said: “Such contention cannot be countenanced. In fact, it will lead to serious consequences. Mere tougher laws and stringent legislations will not relieve the State from establishing the charges as per law.”
Stating that nothing prevents the prosecution from completing the investigation at the earliest and filing a charge sheet before the jurisdictional court, the judge said, the High Court’s power to cancel bail could be used only with care and circumspection. A valid bail order could not be cancelled unless there were cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
Attempt to tamper with evidence during investigation or trial, committing a similar offence or other heinous offences during the bail period, absconding during the course of trial, creating law and order problems, misusing the privilege of bail or wrong exercise of power by a lower court were some of the illustrative reasons for cancellation of bail.
In the present case, the Central Crime Branch, attached to Greater Chennai Police, had not cited any of those reasons in the appeal preferred against the bail granted to the MP. It had only insisted upon taking his voice samples for proving that it was he who had allegedly made a public speech against the Scheduled Castes for which the case had been booked.
Such voice samples could be taken even without arresting the accused, the judge said and went on to observe that people holding high office should also show restraint while delivering public speeches. “Whether or not such remarks amount to offence or humiliation, such remarks should not lead to giving an impression that the same offends any section of society.
“Therefore, the leaders who are in public life not only have a responsibility but also constitutional duty to promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities,” the judge said.